Evaine Dian Posted November 18, 2005 Posted November 18, 2005 I thought they left out far too many scenes that I wanted to see and the whole setting looked very different from what I had imagined, but overall it was quite nice.
Kulyok Posted November 18, 2005 Posted November 18, 2005 We'll only have it on the 22nd of December... (sigh). Say, did he kiss her?
Evaine Dian Posted November 18, 2005 Posted November 18, 2005 I'm not sure what scene you exactly mean, but I can't remember any kissing, no, just a peck on the boys' cheeks by Fleur. I think snogging starts in book 5.
Kulyok Posted November 18, 2005 Posted November 18, 2005 Aw, there was a rumour Hermione kissed Krum. False, then.
Evaine Dian Posted November 18, 2005 Posted November 18, 2005 Oh, that could be, I was a little distracted at that moment and didn't look, maybe I missed that
Bri Posted November 20, 2005 Posted November 20, 2005 Well, I know that I really liked the movie, but especially the first hour, it was really disjointed. Which is frustrating because I really did like the actresses and actors...and almost wish it was done as a TV mini-series, then it would have the time it deserves. (Spoiler to come...though if you read the books, not much of a spoiler) I don't really consider myself very politically correct, but when the girls of House Beauxbaton came in...I could almost feel the advance of women's rights go back 50 years. :-P I much more liked the arrival of Sturmdrang...
Grim Squeaker Posted November 20, 2005 Posted November 20, 2005 I thought it was pretty good really. Its a shame they had to leave out so much material but its a big damn book and you can only fit so much in a film.
Lord Ernie Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 I thought the film was nice enough, and I was actually pretty content about the amount of material they've been able to cover. Some things annoyed me somewhat (Dumbledore sucked, and Krum being a 20-something man was a bit weird), but overall I liked it.
neriana Posted December 2, 2005 Posted December 2, 2005 I thought the film was nice enough, and I was actually pretty content about the amount of material they've been able to cover. Some things annoyed me somewhat (Dumbledore sucked, and Krum being a 20-something man was a bit weird), but overall I liked it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 20-something man? OK... they can't have done that, and left he and Hermione's relationship in. Because this is Harry Potter, not Lolita for kids. If he was just played by a 20-something man, well, I think the actors for Ron, Hermione and Harry are all around 18 by now.
NiGHTMARE Posted December 2, 2005 Posted December 2, 2005 According to IMDB, Emma Watson (Hermione) is 15, Daniel Radcliffe (Harry) is 16, Rupert Grint (Ron) is 17, and Stanislav Ianevski (Krum) is 20. But don't forget the TV/movie industry often have actors play characters much younger than they are themselves. For instance, during the first season of Buffy where the characters are supposed to be 15/16, only Nicholas Brendan (Xander) was 16. Sarah Michelle Gellar (Buffy) was 20, Alyson Hannigan (Willow) was 23, and Charisma Carpenter (Cordelia) was 27!
Grim Squeaker Posted December 2, 2005 Posted December 2, 2005 According to IMDB, Emma Watson (Hermione) is 15, Daniel Radcliffe (Harry) is 16, Rupert Grint is 17, and Stanislav Ianevski (Krum) is 20. But don't forget the TV/movie industry often have actors play characters much younger than they are themselves. For instance, during the first season of Buffy where the characters are supposed to be 15/16, only Nicholas Brendan (Xander) was 16. Sarah Michelle Gellar was 20, Alyson Hannigan was 23, and Charisma Carpenter was 27! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, I'm pretty sure Nicholas Brendan was older than that. /me checks IMDB By my maths, Nicholas Brendan was 26. (Born in 1971, show started in 1997).
NiGHTMARE Posted December 2, 2005 Posted December 2, 2005 D'oh, I thought it said 81, not 71 . So yeah, the only "teenage" actor in Buffy's entire run who was actually the same age as her character was Michelle Trachtenberg (Dawn) .
Evaine Dian Posted December 2, 2005 Posted December 2, 2005 I knew how old the kids were when I watched it, but I didn't find they looked too old for their roles. Krum is supposed to be a little older than Harry, Ron and Hermione, so I don't see where the problem is. Also, I think the Buffy actors did a good job (at least when it comes to their age), IMO they didn't seem out of place.
Kulyok Posted December 28, 2005 Posted December 28, 2005 Been to see it this weekend. (very minor spoilers) It was worth the money, though the ending was a bit boring and forced. (Geez, the school is in mourning, terrible news are being spread, and Harry, Ron and Hermione stand smiling and each other and exchanging phrases like: "But it's been an interesting year, right?") What I liked was the ball scene, though Hermione's and Cho's dress sucked because of ruche, lace and other knickknacks. It could be much better, I think. I also didn't understand the dragon bit. Okay, in the book she was chained, and wizards were ready with stunning spells. Here, she flies all around the castle, and nobody as much as says a word when Harry kills her! Both seemed unrealistic to me. Pirate ship ruled. Snape overseeing homework ruled, too. That's it. Hope to see Narnia kids next week.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.